The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Re: ethics: ideal and practical policy



I appreciate the response I respect and understand your position. However we
shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

I will always contend that their are some overriding principals in which the
term pragmatism has been used by leaders in place of the word compromise to
flutter away the rights of a people enshrined by international law. The Oslo
accords for example. International law considers agreements between an
occupier and any body in occupied areas to be null and void if they deprive
civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation
and restitution. Which the recent Oslo accords have done resulting in the
current Palestinian uprising.

As far as I am concerned their are certain non-negotiable inalienable rights
and principals which must be upheld so that even if they ignored an crushed
today, future generations will not forget them. They will not be handed down
principals diluted by the Governments of the time, like Israel and the US
with comments like "the so called 'occupied territories'" going into the
historical record. Some examples follow:

USA

The recent attempts by the US to rewrite the Geneva Convention because it
needed to "fit new challenges" to deal with terrorism was a charade. The
Geneva convention is the cornerstone of protection for combatants and
civilians during wartime. That it has been ignored for years by the US, in
Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Panama is an open secret. Instead of trying to
rectify those gross violations the US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld
feels the need to extend its powers by suggesting the Taliban POW's
treatment will be 'reasonably consistent' with the Geneva Convention. Which
in practice has meant mistreatment and torture of prisoners, denial of
consular access, assassination, forced deportation (kidnap) and more
recently it seems a US sanctioned massacre of 3000 Taliban soldiers at
Shiberghan. The US goes still further by trying to gain legal cover for its
actions by suggesting moves to change the wording of the very convention it
seeks to violate. Perhaps the US fears the consequences these consistent
violations may bring in the face of an increasingly politically aware world.
Recall Pinochet.

UK

The UK derogated under Article 5 (1) of the European Convention on Human
Rights in order to bring in its draconian 'Anti-terrorism, Crime and
Security Act'. This is a dangerous precedent in itself as the UK is the only
EU government that has derogated from its international human rights treaty
obligations undermining the European human rights framework and creating a
shadow criminal justice system without the safeguards of the formal system.
Its basis for derogation would not stand up in court.

ISRAEL

 is a probably the worst example of a state trying to rewrite the
international law by allowing the years to drag by and relying on the
'pragmatists' in a weak negotiating position to accept its position. This
includes its occupation in breach of international law, its aggressive
settlement-building programme on occupied land in breach of the 4th Geneva
convention (Article 49),  denying the return of Palestinian refugees
displaced by Israel as many as 5 million (including their descendents) to
their own country, a right enshrined by the UN (Resolutions 194, 3236) and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13). The right of
Palestinian heroic resistance fighter to defend expel the occupier protected
by The Accords of both Lahaye Councils, The 2nd clause of the Lahaye
resolutions (1907), The United Nations' Convention (51st), The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights -(14th December 1960 - resolution 1514) "The
Special Declaration of According the Independence to Colonized Territories
and Peoples" and the Geneva Accords of 1949. Israel hoped this strategy of
the 'long game' would work in Lebanon but the brave resistance forces of
Hizbullah argued their case in the only language the Israeli's seem to
respect, with force. The invaders were expelled because pragmatism did not
rule the day.

As far as I am concerned these rights, principals, call them what you will
cannot be negotiated. To my mind they engage with the world on the widest
possible level because as you say so yourself "the majority of the people
agree with these important principals".

 I believe in the human race, I believe in their innate morality which means
they do hold these principals high. My aim is not intended to "make us
appear credible to the policy makers who *very occasionally* bother (or are
forced) to listen to us." My aim and I believe the aim of all socialists is
to raise the awareness of the masses, soldiers in the UK armed forces,
nurses, firemen, farmers, the trade unions of this country who already share
these innate values and show them how their leaders have betrayed their
trust and how they are killing their brothers and sisters overseas and
sending our soldiers to die for oil men and their profits. Then the 'policy
makers' will listen, in time, we might even have a regime change of our own.

As Fidel Castro said "History has shown that great solutions have only from
come out of deep crisis. In a thousand different ways, the peoples right to
life and justice will inevitably impose itself."

M


----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Zurcher <aez20@cus.cam.ac.uk>
To: M <xxx@ntlworld.com>
Cc: Colin Rowat <c.rowat@espero.org.uk>; <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: ethics: ideal and practical policy


>
>
> Dear M and everyone,
>
> This is as good a time as any to say this. In what I say below I am not
> defending or speaking for Colin Rowat, though I share a lot of his
> beliefs, and I aspire to emulate what I know, through long friendship, to
> be his intelligence and deepgraven humanity.
>
> The issues that you raise, M, with Colin's posting seem to me to have
> missed a central point about mode of discussion, one that is frequently
> missed in 'conversations' taking place on this list. I share your
> concerns, M (as I think does Colin, for that matter), but I think we
> have to make a distinction between *ideal policy* and *practical policy*.
> I'd imagine that a large majority of the people on this list agree on many
> important principles, and that, in an ideal, constraint-free world, we'd
> all opt for peace, prosperity, mutual respect, and happiness (in the
> Aristotelian sense). Where we seem to differ is in our approach to
> normalizing these principles in a practical environment--in adapting these
> beliefs to the world-as-we-know-it.
>
> I read Colin's questions, suggestions, and tentative judgments as (fairly
> brave) attempts to address the current (horrible) situation in a practical
> way. It is true that (it seems to me) he leaves a lot
> unstated--throughout, you might continuously append the phrase, 'given
> likely American policy alternatives' or the equivalent. There is no
> question, for example, that even if the US decided (as some frustratedly
> and frustratingly suggested in the past few days) to push for a complete
> lifting of the embargo at 1 p.m. GMT today, it would have to come up with
> a credible story that would allow it to save face, for reasons good and
> bad (and atrocious). The fact is, we are in a position now where the
> alternatives between war, invasion, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc.,
> are not constrained only by fundamental principles of humanity, but by
> political economy and basic schoolyard ego-accommodation. Pretending that
> this is not the case is only going to make us appear less credible to the
> policy makers who *very occasionally* bother (or are forced) to listen to
> us. The 'fundamental humanity' angle is one that religious celebrities
> like the Archbbishop of Canterbury and the Pope (and their equivalents in
> other faith traditions) can champion while retaining credibility, because
> that license is allowed them, and respected. We aren't so lucky, I think.
>
> So in general, while I share M's frustration and concern with
> certain habits of thought and language, of ideology, that we all suffer
> from (myself more than any, I'm sure), I do wish that people on this list
> would *also* be careful to remember the crucial distinction between the
> ideal and the pragmatic. I recognize the value of no-compromise Crying in
> the Wilderness; but there are also times when it is important to engage
> with the world-as-we-know-it, and I hope we won't waste time, and
> frustrate our own solidarity, by confusing one with the other. It seems to
> me that they are both ethical modes of engagement.
>
> az
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Andrew Zurcher
> Gonville & Caius College
> Cambridge CB2 1TA
> United Kingdom
> tel: +44 1223 335 427
>
> hast hast post hast for lyfe
>


_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]